Bill Overview
Title: Terry Technical Correction Act
Description: This bill broadens the scope of crack cocaine offenders who are eligible for a retroactive sentencing reduction under the First Step Act of 2018. The First Step Act made the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 retroactive and authorized sentencing reductions for certain crack cocaine offenders convicted and sentenced before the Fair Sentencing Act became effective. Under current law, crack cocaine offenders whose conduct triggered a mandatory minimum sentence are eligible for a retroactive sentencing reduction under the First Step Act. However, in 2021, the Supreme Court held in Terry v. United States that low-level crack cocaine offenders whose conduct did not trigger a mandatory minimum sentence are not eligible for a retroactive sentencing reduction under the First Step Act. This bill extends eligibility for a retroactive sentencing reduction under the First Step Act to all crack cocaine offenders convicted and sentenced before the Fair Sentencing Act became effective, including low-level offenders whose conduct did not trigger a mandatory minimum sentence.
Sponsors: Rep. Jackson Lee, Sheila [D-TX-18]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals convicted of crack cocaine offenses eligible for retroactive sentencing reduction
Estimated Size: 50000
- The First Step Act was designed to provide sentencing relief for those who had been disproportionately sentenced under laws that were later changed by the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. This population primarily consists of individuals involved in crack cocaine offenses.
- The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 reduced the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentencing, thus impacting offenders who were previously sentenced under the harsher rules for crack cocaine.
- The Terry v. United States decision excluded low-level offenders who didn't receive mandatory minimums from being eligible for retroactive relief, leaving a gap in the population that can benefit from the First Step Act.
- This new bill aims to include all crack cocaine offenders sentenced before the Fair Sentencing Act, closing the gap left by the Terry decision and potentially affecting many low-level offenders.
Reasoning
- The policy targets individuals convicted of crack cocaine offenses who were sentenced before the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. This group includes many low-level offenders who were disproportionately affected by prior sentencing laws.
- Due to budget constraints, the policy can only address a fraction of the estimated 50,000 eligible individuals in the first year. This implies the policy will have a significant impact on those who are already vulnerable or marginalized by their incarceration.
- Consideration is given to individuals' differing circumstances, such as socioeconomic status, family connections, and post-release opportunities, which affect their perceived wellbeing.
- The long-term goal of the policy is to correct past injustices by offering fairer sentencing and potentially reducing recidivism through successful reintegration into the community. The interviews collectively reflect a spectrum of potential outcomes to understand the broader implications.
Simulated Interviews
Former Inmate (Chicago, IL)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's about time the law recognizes the unfairness of the old system. This new policy could allow me to rebuild my life more effectively.
- I have spent a lot of time trying to get back on my feet. A reduced time on probation would help me find stable work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Social Worker (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill could provide much-needed relief to those who have struggled under the weight of an unfair sentence. It's a positive step towards justice.
- We must ensure support systems are in place for these individuals as they transition back into society.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Unemployed (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I lost a big chunk of my life to a law that didn't treat me fairly. This policy gives people like me a second chance.
- With reduced sentences, I can focus more on finding permanent housing and a job.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Community Advocate (New York, NY)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The impact of this policy can be transformative for the communities we serve. It acknowledges past harm and gives individuals a path forward.
- We need to ensure social services and community support are robust to handle the reintegration.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 9 |
Construction Worker (Houston, TX)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If I can get my record cleared faster, it'll really help with job stability and housing opportunities.
- I believe this policy addresses an issue that's been ignored for too long.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Retail Worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see firsthand the struggles that families go through with loved ones incarcerated under outdated laws. This policy could alleviate some of that burden.
- We should support programs that help former inmates reintegrate into communities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Research Analyst (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 31 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy represents a significant shift towards a more equitable justice system. It's about correcting disparities and moving towards fairness.
- Monitoring its implementation and outcomes will be crucial for assessing long-term efficacy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Retired Judge (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This legislative step addresses a moral wrong within our sentencing past. It brings us closer to justice and fairness.
- The complexities in implementing such changes require careful management.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
College Student (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My father was impacted by these outdated laws, and this policy could mean a lot to families like mine.
- This approach helps restore faith in our justice system for people who felt abandoned by it.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 9 |
Truck Driver (Miami, FL)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- When you're given an unfair sentence for a mistake, it holds you back in life. This bill could mean freedom for many who deserve it.
- Support and reintegration resources are crucial to make this policy successful.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 2: $24000000 (Low: $19000000, High: $29000000)
Year 3: $23000000 (Low: $18000000, High: $28000000)
Year 5: $22000000 (Low: $17000000, High: $27000000)
Year 10: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Key Considerations
- Administrative and judicial costs will be front-loaded, with longer-term savings potentially offsetting initial expenses.
- Effects on local communities might vary based on the reintegration and support services available.
- Support and compliance with rehabilitation programs can influence the success of reintegration.